One in every eleven persons born in Mexico has gone to the U.S. The National Review reported that in 2014 $1.87 billion was spent on incarcerating illegal immigrant criminals….Now add hundreds of billions for welfare and remittances! MICHAEL BARGO, Jr…… for the AMERICAN THINKER.COM

do a google of Obama’s BIG BANKSTER
DONORS and you will find a list of the banks that have looted this nation, yet
found a place in the corrupt Obama administration!

*

OBAMA’S BILLIONAIRE NOMINEE FOR COMMERCE, PENNY PRITZKER…
BILLION$$$$ MADE OFF HIRING CHEAP ILLEGAL LABOR??? show me even one dem
billionaire that does not push for obama’s agenda of OPEN BORDERS, NO E-VERIFY
and NO ENFORCEMENT of LAWS PROHIBITING THE EMPLOYMENT of ILLEGALS…even one!

“In
a statement, National Citizenship and Immigration Services Council (NCISC)
president Kenneth Palinkas said the bill would create an “insurmountable
bureaucracy” within his agency, and argued the legislation would interfere with
the independent judgment of officers who were already “pressured to rubber
stamp applications instead of conducting diligent case review and
investigation.”

The
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration released a report last week
indicating that Internal Revenue Service (IRS) managers discouraged their
employees from detecting illegal alien tax fraud.

“What
we're seeing is our Congress and national leadership dismantling our laws by
not enforcing them. Lawlessness becomes the norm, just like Third World
corruption. Illegal aliens now have more rights and privileges than Americans.
If you are an illegal alien, you can drive a car without a driver's license or
insurance. You may obtain medical care without paying. You may work without
paying taxes. Your children enjoy free education at the expense of taxpaying
Americans.”

It proves the Obama administration is willing to go to any extent
- including gaming the courts - to continue stonewalling the full story of its
lawless release of illegal aliens. Now, with the prison floodgates being thrown
open to illegal aliens under the phony pretense of abiding by sequester cuts,
it is more important that details of this threat to the public safety be
revealed.

Obama’s Promise of Homeland Security
to Americans (Legals) and his Vow to Illegals of Open and Undefended Borders
With Narcomex

"Just look for the ones talking about jobs, taxes, health
care, education, and government budgets, without addressing the negative impact
of illegal immigration." -- William Gheen, President
of ALIPAC.

"There
is no doubt in my mind that, if Dianne Feinstein had a pattern of taking
positions on U.S.China policy that Chinese officials disliked, Mr. Blum would
have a great deal more difficulty doing business in China and probably would
find it impossible to do." Senator Is Warned of China Overtures Already,
federal investigators have detected that the Chinese government might attempt
to seek favor with Feinstein”

"We could cut unemployment in half simply by reclaiming the jobs taken by illegal workers," said Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, co-chairman of the Reclaim American Jobs Caucus. "President Obama is on the wrong side of the American people on immigration. The president should support policies that help citizens and legal immigrants find the jobs they need and deserve rather than fail to enforce immigration laws."

“At the hearing, Dr. Rakesh Kochar, Associate Director for Research at the Pew Hispanic Center, testified that in the year following the official end of the recession (June 2009), foreign-born workers gained 656,000 jobs while native-born workers lost an additional 1.2 million jobs.”

"We have a situation where the job market — the bottom fell out, yet we kept legal immigration relatively high without even a national debate," he said. "As a consequence, a lot of the job growth has been going to immigrants."

Mr. Obama did take action this year to grant many illegal immigrants up to 30 years of age a tentative legal status that prevents them from being deported and authorizes them to work in the United States.

Some Republicans in Congress have criticized Mr. Obama's policy, saying it violates his powers and will mean more competition for scarce jobs.

...please post this article on FACEBOOK and e-send to your family and friends. email links for these services at bottom of this article

Tech firms fight hiring rules in
immigration bill

Americans would "be shocked to know that most
of the H-1B visas … are going to outsourcing companies," Sen. Dick Durbin,
D-Ill., said during a recent hearing.

Story Highlights

Bill provision that would require
firms to post jobs for Americans is targeted

Technology firms have spent millions
on lobbying on immigration

Judiciary Committee set to start
working on bill

WASHINGTON – Technology firms,
exercising new political clout on Capitol Hill, are lobbying against a measure
in the leading Senate immigration bill that would make it harder for them to
recruit workers from abroad without first taking steps to hire Americans for
highly skilled jobs in programming, engineering and other fields.

The measure, part of a sweeping
compromise bill drafted by a bipartisan group of eight senators, would require
job openings to be posted on a new government website for 30 days and order
companies to first extend job offers to "equally or better qualified"
U.S. workers. It would give the U.S. Labor Department the power to review and
challenge those hiring decisions.

Proponents say the measures are
needed to curb abuses by companies who they say use the visa program to hire
cheaper labor. Technology companies say the proposed rules would cripple their
ability to hire the best employees from a global workforce and represent
inappropriate government intrusion in internal hiring decisions.

The fight over hiring practices
is part of the massive lobbying campaign underway on the immigration measure
and will offer a fresh test of the technology industry's growing influence in
Washington. The companies involved in the computer and Internet sectors spent
nearly $140 million in lobbying last year -- more than twice the $69 million
the industry poured into influencing Washington a decade earlier, according to
data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks political
spending.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is
set to begin work on the bill Thursday.

The hiring battle centers on the
program that grants H-1B visas, which go mostly to college-educated foreigners
in science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields. Technology
companies say they face a chronic shortage of qualified workers in these
fields. The United States sets an annual limit of 85,000 visas for these
companies, and the competition for them is intense: This year, U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services opened up the application process April 1, and the cap
was reached within a week.

Industry groups have made big
gains in the Senate's immigration proposal. The bill, for instance, Would
increase the H-1B cap to 205,000 annually. However, tech officials warn the new
recruiting requirements could drive companies to move their skilled jobs
overseas, rather than comply. A commonly cited example: Microsoft's decision to
open a software center in Vancouver, British Columbia, after Congress failed to
pass immigration legislation in 2007 that would have significantly increased
the number of H-1B visas.

Under the bill, "employers
are going to have an arbitrary government standard imposed on every hiring
decision," said Robert Hoffman, the top lobbyist for the Information
Technology Industry Council, a trade group. The proposed rule, he said, ignores
subjective factors that influence hiring. "A perfect example: How does one
define whether or not someone has the personality to fit into a corporate
culture?" he said.

"We are not trying to change
any of the fundamental policy goals that they are trying to achieve" in
the Senate, Hoffman said. "We are just trying to tweak it, so that these
goals and other goals, like retaining the best and brightest and growing in the
United States, so that those types of goals are advanced as well."

Ron Hira, an associate professor
of public policy at the Rochester Institute of Technology, has criticized the
visa program, saying it allows firms to hire "cheap indentured
labor."

"The technology industry is
asking the government to come in and intervene in the normal functioning of the
U.S. labor market, specifically on their behalf," Hira said.

Bruce Morrison, a former
Connecticut congressman who lobbies on behalf of a group that represents
American engineers, said the organization will object to any effort to
"dilute worker protections" as the measure moves through the Senate.
"The arguments from the companies is that there aren't any Americans to
take these jobs," he said, "so there shouldn't be any problem."

The biggest users of H-1B visas
are not brand-name companies, but little-known staffing companies that provide
foreign workers on a temporary basis to U.S. companies — including banks,
health insurance companies and big retailers. Cognizant, a New Jersey-based
company that employs 27,000 people in the USA, is the top user of the temporary
visas, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services records show. Most of its
workers come from India.

In addition, three India-based
outsourcing companies rank among the top five recipients of H-1Bs, according to
the federal data.

Americans would "be shocked
to know that most of the H-1B visas … are going to outsourcing companies,"
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., one of eight senators who drafted the immigration
bill, said during a recent hearing. "They're going to these firms, largely
in India, who are finding workers, engineers, who will work at low wages in the
U.S."

Durbin is a driving force behind
the hiring requirements in the Senate proposal.

The measure would make business
harder for staffing companies dependent on foreign workers. It would impose
higher fees on firms that rely on overseas employees for more than 30% of their
workforce. Starting in 2016, the bill would bar granting any new temporary
visas for foreign workers at companies with more than half their workers on the
visas. Both measures apply to companies that employ more than 50 people.

Cognizant spokesman John Procter
said he did not have a breakdown on the percentage of the company's workers in
the USA on H-1B visas. He said the bill imposes an "arbitrary, detrimental
restriction on the number of skilled immigrants."

"It would really change the
way America does business," he said. "The company is very focused on
educating legislators and making sure this language doesn't make its way into
any final outcome."

Cognizant hired its first federal
lobbyist in 2010 andby last year, it had spent nearly $1 million on federal
lobbying, congressional records show. Its team includes Democratic power broker
Heather Podesta, who did not return a telephone call. Other companies also have
stepped up their political activity.

Last month, Facebook founder Mark
Zuckerberg, Netflix's Reed Hastings, Google's Eric Schmidt and other technology
executives teamed up to underwrite an advocacy group to promote their views on
immigration. Two of its subsidiaries began a seven-figure advertising campaign
to shore up voter support for key senators in the immigration debate.

The tech industry "has
clearly come of age," said Ellen Miller, executive director of the
Sunlight Foundation. "In the last decade, we've seen this tremendous
recognition from Silicon Valley of the need to play in the power circles — to
both protect their bottom line and to alter the political scene to their
advantage."

“The
changes to the rule, which will be announced on Thursday, could effectively
empower a few big banks to continue controlling the derivatives market, a main
culprit in the financial crisis.”

Big Banks Get Break in Rules to Limit Risks

Obama now looting the American student while he hands billions in DEM
DREAM ACTS of WELFARE to illegals… his bankster cronies at JPMorgan cleaning up
on students also!

“But
as the Federal Reserve attempts to lower borrowing costs for everyone from
households and small businesses to large corporations and Wall Street banks,
student borrowers have not been able to benefit.”

OBAMA
REMINDS HIS LA RAZA PARTY BASE OF ILLEGALS, AND HIS CRIMINAL BANKSTER DONORS
THAT THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS CAN STILL BE SOAKED!

TRILLIONS
HANDED OVER TO OBAMA’S LOOTING BANKSTERS AND SIPHONED OFF THE ECONOMY BY
MEXICO’S LOOTING… WITH NO END IN SIGHT!

A FEW BASIC FACTS ABOUT OBAMA:

“Behind the thin rhetoric about reigniting a
“thriving middle class,” Obama made clear that the administration’s policies in
its second term will be subordinated entirely to the interests of big business,
beginning with plans to slash hundreds of billions more from health care
programs.”

The
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration released a report last week
indicating that Internal Revenue Service (IRS) managers discouraged their
employees from detecting illegal alien tax fraud.

“In other words, the Republican Party is finished. As their
numbers grow through immigration and welfare, democrats will become the
wholesale dominant party in America until everyone’s money runs out by all
those who milk the system, i.e., 45.2 million Americans subsisting on food
stamps and assisted house, energy, medical care and electricity—will ultimately
grow to 90 million and more. All of who work will be paying for all those who
choose to live for free forever.”

Who are Obama’s LA RAZA party base of illegals. How
much of a threat to America is this Mexican fascism?

"Remember 187 -- the Proposition to
deny taxpayer funds for services to non-citizens --- was the last gasp of white
America in California." --- Art
Torres, Chairman of the California Democratic Party… NOW THE PARTY for LA RAZA
SUPREMACY

Afghan President Hamid
Karzai denies that CIA cash delivered to his office each month was used to buy
the support of warlords who could tip the country into another civil war.
Karzai insists the cash was used for above-board purposes.

Karzai’s statement comes less than one week
after The New York Times alleged that Afghan top officials had been receiving
payments from the CIA and that some of those funds were used to bribe warlords
into supporting Karzai’s US-backed government, ahead of NATO’s troop withdrawal
next year.

While Karzai openly admitted to receiving the cash, he adamantly denied that
any of it was used to buy the loyalty of warlords. Instead, he said the money –
which was allegedly packed in suitcases, backpacks, and plastic shopping bags –
was used for such causes as healthcare and scholarships.

"This money was not given to warlords," he told a Saturday
press conference in Kabul. "The major part of this money was spent on
government employees such as our guards...it has been paid to individuals, not
movements…we give receipts for all these expenditures to the US
government."

Karzai declined to confirm just how much money his office received each month
from the CIA, although he previously stated that the cash was a "small amount."

“Yes, the office of the national security has been receiving support from
the United States for the past 10 years,” Karzai said in an earlier
statement. “Monthly. Not a big amount. A small amount which has been used
for various purposes.”

However, Karzai’s former and current advisers said that tens of millions of
dollars were given to the leader over the past decade.

Despite protests in Washington and criticism from Afghan opposition groups,
Karzai asked US officials on Saturday to continue the cash deliveries.

"Just this morning I met with the station chief of the CIA in Kabul and
I thanked him for the support given to us in the past 10 years and I asked him
to continue the support," Karzai said. He added that the money was "flowing
to" Afghanistan's intelligence agency, the National Directorate of
Security.

"In the situation of Afghanistan where there is so much need...it
proves extremely helpful."

After 11 years of fighting in Afghanistan, international experts worry that
NATO’s planned 2014 pullout will leave Kabul unable to survive a Taliban
onslaught – and that Karzai’s government won’t last without US support.

A report by a British Ministry of Defense think tank, which was released in
March, said NATO troops will leave Afghanistan in a fragile state.

“The country will again be left with a severely damaged and very weak
economic base, heavily dependent upon external aid,” the report said.

*

Karzai:
CIA vows cash payments will continue despite scandal

By Julian Pecquet - 05/04/13
10:32 AM ET

Afghan President Hamid Karzai said Saturday he's been assured by the
CIA's Kabul station chief that regular cash payments to his government will
continue after a New York Timesexposé created a scandal in his country and the United States.

“The help and assistance from the
U.S. is for our National Directorate of Security. That is state-to-state,
government-to-government regular assistance,” Karzai said, according to the AP.
“So that is a government institution helping another government institution,
and we appreciate all this assistance and help, all this assistance is very
useful for us. We have spent it in different areas (and) solved lots of our problems.”

The New York Times first brought the payments to light last weekend. The
newspaper estimated that the cash transfers, which were brought in plastic bags
and suitcases and referred to as “ghost money” by Karzai aides, totaled tens of
millions of dollars since the U.S. invasion of 2001.

The report created a firestorm of controversy in Afghanistan, with
opposition lawmakers calling Karzai a traitor for accepting money from a
foreign government without any accountability.

"These payments highlight President Karzai's lack of loyalty,"
Sayed Fazel Sancharaki, a spokesman for the opposition National Coalition, told
the Agence France-Presse. "It's very unfortunate that such money is given
in a non-transparent way and by foreign intelligence agencies."

U.S. lawmakers, for their part, demanded an explanation, saying such
opaque payments “promote corruption.”

“Our support for the Karzai administration should have evolved long ago
into regular and more sustainable efforts that are fully coordinated across the
government and are calibrated to ensure collaboration with U.S. policies,” Sen.
Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, wrote in a letter to President Obama on Thursday. “The alleged arrangements make
accountability impossible and promote corruption at the top levels of the
Afghan government, as well as break trust with the American taxpayer.

“Please provide an explanation, with a classified annex if necessary,
for how this alleged policy fits within overall U.S. objectives in
Afghanistan.”

WHO SHAMES THIS NATION
MORE BY KISSING DICTATORS’ ASSES? BUSH OR OBAMA? BUT THEN ISN’T OBAMA SIMPLY
BUSH IN DRAG?

IF YOU WERE TO ASK THE
BANKSTERS, THEY’D TELL YOU. NO CHANGE!

Fucker karzai only had
to slip a few million over the table to his opponent, and viola! He’s outta
there!

We all have an
unfortunately clear picture that OBAMA is as ethically squalid as Bush,
Hillary, Billary, Bush! “Change!” was this actor’s line. The banksters love his
no-change guy, like they love the no-banksters regulation!

We wanted to puke when
Obama made a monkey of himself, no different than “W”, bending over to kiss the
Saudi dictator’s ass. GOOGLE OUR 9-11 INVADERS AND WAHHABI-SAUDI MUSLIM FASCIST
and BUSH CARLYLE GROUP SAUDI)

Now we’re back to
sending a message to the world that our government, when it’s not in bed with
banksters, crawls in bed with filthy dictators, and their drug dealer brothers,
like Karazi’s.

Democracy? We don’t have
it in theUnited States. Our government
works for WALL ST and ILLEGALS. The rest of us just pay their fucking bills,
including those to defend the filthy Saudis in the Bush family’s two wars with
Iraq, from Saddam!

VISUALIZE REVOLUTION TO
RESTORE DEMOCRACY IN THE CORPORATE OWNED COUNTRY!

KABUL – President Hamid Karzai was effectively handed a second five-year term
Sunday when his only challenger dropped out of the race, and the Obama
administration said it was prepared to work with the man it has previously
criticized to combat corruption and confront the Taliban insurgency.

President Barack Obama has been waiting for a new government in Kabul to announce
whether he will send tens of thousands of new troops to Afghanistan. The war has intensified and October was the
deadliest month of the eight-year war for U.S. forces.

Former Foreign Minister
Abdullah Abdullah announced his decision to quit six days before the runoff election, after last-minute talks led by the U.S. and
United Nations failed to produce a power-sharing agreement acceptable to
Karzai, according to a Western diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity
because of the sensitivity of the negotiations.

In an emotional speech,
Abdullah told supporters that he could not accept an runoff led by the same
Karzai-appointed election commission that managed the fraud-marred vote in August. The runoff was set
for Nov. 7 after U.N.-backed auditors annulled nearly a third of Karzai's votes
as fakes.

"I will not
participate in the Nov. 7 election," Abdullah said, because a
"transparent election is not possible."

The Obama administration,
which had been critical of Karzai's leadership, appeared to accept the outcome.

Senior Obama adviser David Axelrod said most polls showed Abdullah would have lost
the runoff anyway "so we are going to deal with the government that is
there."

"And obviously
there are issues we need to discuss, such as reducing the high level of
corruption," Axelrod said on "Face the Nation." "These are issues we'll take up with President Karzai."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton congratulated Abdullah for a "dignified and
constructive" campaign and said the United States "will support the
next president and the people of Afghanistan, who seek and deserve a better
future."

Axelrod said Obama would
announce a war strategy "within weeks." A senior U.S. official told
The Associated Press that Obama has still not yet decided what to do, and it
remains unclear whether he will decide before he goes to Asia on Nov. 11.

The official spoke on
condition of anonymity to speak more frankly about Obama's decision-making process.

About 68,000 American
troops already have been ordered to report to Afghanistan by the end of the
year.

The top U.S. and NATO
commander in Afghanistan, Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, wants the Pentagon to send him an additional 40,000 troops to
prevent the Taliban from letting al-Qaida once again use Afghanistan as a haven — as it
was in the days leading up to the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

Despite misgivings over
Karzai, the U.S. has little choice but to support a leader who was once the
toast of Washington for his charm, his fluent English and his role as a
conciliator in the wake of the Taliban collapse. Fluent in both major Afghan
languages, he could reach out to different ethnic groups, including his fellow
Pashtuns who also form the overwhelming majority of the Taliban.

But critics say he has
been reluctant to rein in some of the former warlords whose support he sought
to bolster his own political power but who are allegedly responsible for much
of the corruption that plagues the government.

His own half brother Ahmed Wali Karzai has been rumored to be involved in the drug
trade, charges that he vigorously denies.

Karzai insists he fell
out of favor in Washington when he openly criticized U.S. military tactics,
including the heavy use of air power that has killed many civilians. McChrystal
has ordered troops to use air power sparingly to avoid turning Afghans against the NATO mission.

Abdullah stopped short
of calling on supporters to boycott the polls — a move U.S. officials feared
would have enflamed tensions. He also urged his followers "not to go into
the streets" to protest the election.

"The people have
the right to have a fair election," Abdullah said. "But this election
was a failure. It was not independent. It was not transparent."

Karzai's campaign
spokesman, Waheed Omar, said it was "very unfortunate" that Abdullah
had withdrawn but insisted that the Saturday runoff should proceed as planned.

"We believe that
the elections have to go on, the process has to complete itself, the people of Afghanistan have to be given the right to vote," Omar
said.

Some analysts believed
Karzai wanted a runoff as an affirmation of his leadership after the
humiliation of having so many of his August votes stripped away.

However, given the risk
of Taliban attacks, the expense and the huge logistical
challenge, it seemed doubtful that the second round would be held.

"It's difficult to
see how you can have a runoff with only one candidate," U.N. spokesman
Aleem Siddique said.

Abdullah's withdrawal
was the latest chapter in a deeply troubled election, the first run by Afghans
since the fall of the Taliban in 2001.

The process has been
marked by delays, fraud, Taliban violence and an internal dispute within the
U.N. that led to the dismissal of the American deputy chief, who accused his
boss of failing to prevent cheating.

After the U.N.-backed
panel confirmed massive fraud, Karzai accepted a runoff but only under intense
U.S. pressure. The U.N.-backed panel challenged figures from the government election
commission showing Karzai had won
the August vote with an absolute majority in
the 36-candidate race.

Once the runoff was
called, Abdullah put forward several demands, including replacing the top three
officials in the election commission. When Karzai refused, Abdullah's supporters said last week he
would quit the race.

U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry and the U.N. chief Kai Eide negotiated with the two camps late
into the night Saturday about a power-sharing deal, according to the Western
diplomat.

But the negotiations
broke down early Sunday when Karzai refused a formula for dividing Cabinet
posts. If the deal had been accepted, Abdullah would have conceded rather than
simply withdraw his candidacy, the diplomat said. Abdullah's decision not to call
for a boycott indicated he was open to future talks.

The
election in Afghanistan has turned into a disaster for all who promoted it.
Hamid Karzai has been declared re-elected as President of the country for the
next five years though his allies inside and outside Afghanistan know that he
owes his success to open fraud. Instead of increasing his government's
legitimacy, the poll has further de-legitimised it.

From
Mr Karzai's point of view he won through at the end and showed that nobody is
strong enough to get rid of him. For the US President, Barack Obama, the
election has no silver lining. It has left him poised to send tens of thousands
more US troops to fight a war in defence of one of the world's most crooked,
corrupt and discredited governments. "It is not that the Taliban is so
strong, but the government is so weak," was a common saying among Afghans
before the election. This will be even truer in future.

The
US and its allies may now push for a national unity government between Mr
Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah, his main rival for the presidency. This might
look good on paper, or at least better than the alternative of Mr Karzai ruling
alone. But enforced unity between men who detest each other will
institutionalise divisions. Its value will largely be in terms of propaganda
for external consumption.

On
4 November 2008, when Mr Obama won the US election, he must have believed he
had been right to take a soft line on Iraq and a hard one on Afghanistan. The
former looked much the more dangerous place. Just 12 months later he is
discovering that the reverse is true and Afghanistan is the biggest foreign
policy problem facing the US. It is a more dangerous place for the US and its
allies than Iraq ever was.

In
Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, the government was democratically elected by a huge
majority in 2005. There was a savage civil war because the fifth of the
population, who are Sunni Arabs, did not accept that victory. The Shia did not
relish US occupation, but they were prepared to co-operate with it while they
took power. Only the Kurds were long-term US allies.

In
Iraq the state was previously strong and can be made strong again. Above all
the Iraqi government had money. Its oil revenues were $62bn (£38bn) last year.
The Afghan government has in the past had limited authority outside the cities
and it has no money apart from foreign aid handouts.

Another
important difference between the two countries is geography. Iraq is flat
outside Kurdistan and the great majority live in cities and towns on the Tigris
and Euphrates. It is not good terrain for guerrilla fighters in contrast to
Afghanistan with its high mountains, broken hills and isolated villages.

The Taliban
have been able to use safe havens in the Pashtun belt of north-west Pakistan.
These areas are now under attack from US drones and the Pakistani army. But the
suicide bombers who killed 35 people in Rawalpindi and maimed at least seven in
Lahore yesterday showed that the cost to Pakistan of attacking an insurgency
firmly rooted in its Pashtun community will be high.

One
of the few benefits of the Afghan election might be a more realistic
understanding in the US and Europe – particularly in Britain – of the mechanics
of Afghan politics. These were eloquently summarised in his resignation letter
to the US State Department by Matthew Hoh, the senior American civilian
representative in Zabul province. He was previously a US Marine officer in
Iraq. Mr Hoh makes the important point that the US has joined one side in what
is effectively a 35-year-long civil war in Afghanistan. He sees this as being
between the urban, educated, secular, modern Afghanistan against the rural,
religious, illiterate and traditional Pashtun.

"The
US and Nato presence and operations in Pashtun valleys and villages, as well as
Afghan army and police units that are led and composed of non-Pashtun soldiers
and police, provide an occupation force against which the insurgency is
justified," concludes Mr Hoh. "I have observed that the bulk of the
insurgency fights not for the white banner of the Taliban, but rather against
the presence of foreign soldiers and taxes imposed by an unrepresentative
government in Kabul."

Mr
Hoh's observations are confirmed by opinion polls in Afghanistan. The majority
of Afghans do not want more foreign troops. They think their arrival will mean
more dead Afghans. The areas where the Taliban is most acceptable is where US
and allied planes and artillery have killed civilians. The idea that the US
Army is going to turn into a glorified Peace Corps is romantic and unrealistic.

Washington
and London should really wonder after Afghanistan's farcical election if their
political and military investment in the country is worth it. Their policy of
propping up and strengthening the central government looks more ludicrous than
before. There is something sickening when British troops had their legs blown
off securing polling stations where Afghans could vote, when the
British-supported government in Kabul was busily fabricating the vote so the
presence or absence of polling booths was entirely irrelevant.

The
US and Britain have joined somebody else's civil war. It is not one that the
Taliban are likely to win, because they rely on the Pashtun community which
makes up only 42 per cent of the population. By the same token they are not
likely to lose either. American troop reinforcements would give the
anti-Taliban forces control over more of the country but would also intensify
the war. The context of greater US involvement will be, thanks to the election,
a weaker Karzai government so Americans, not Afghans, will take the vital
political and military decisions. To Afghans this means the foreign presence
will look even more like an imperial occupation.

*

Understanding the Wahhabist Infiltration of America

Frank Salvato

Part of the reason many Americans don’t appreciate the
significance of Osama bin Laden’s declarations of war against the United States
and the West is because they are completely oblivious to the in‑roads radical
Islam has made within the United States. Radical Islamists (i.e., Islamofascists,
Wahhabis) understand that the conflict must take place on multiple fronts:
militarily, economically, diplomatically and ideologically. Because they
understand the complexity of the confrontation and the ability of the West to
adapt to challenges – albeit lethargically – they employ multiple tactics in
their aggressive pursuit of victory. The West’s addiction to sensationalism,
epitomized by our limited attention to detail, unless it plays in the
superficial 24‑hour news cycle, facilitates the successful infiltration of
radical ideology into Western society.

Much to the chagrin of the multicultural and the proponents
of diversity, those who promote radical Islamist ideology thrive on the fact
that the politically correct culture of the West – and the United States in
particular – deems it inappropriate to question religious practices or
teachings. With this politically correct “wall of separation” in place little
if any scrutiny is given to the information disseminated within any given
religious institution. This directly facilitates the ideological advancement of
Wahhabism, the most radical and puritanical form of Islam, within the mosques
of the United States.

To accurately understand the depth of infiltration of the
Wahhabist ideology on American soil we need to examine the ideology and how it
is advanced within the United States.

Wahhabism is a fiercely fundamentalist form of orthodox
Sunni Islam. After a brief examination of its tenets it is clear that it is one
of division, domination and hate.

Wahhabism originated circa 1703 and is the dominant form of
Islam in Saudi Arabia. Wahhabists believe that any and all evolution of the
Islamic faith after the 3rd century of the Muslim era – after 950 A.D. – was
specious and must be expunged. Consequently, Wahhabism is the form of Islam
that Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahri practice.

This radically fundamentalist dogma is fanatically bigoted,
xenophobic and lends itself to serve as the catalyst for much of the
Islamofascist aggression being perpetrated around the world. It is a wrathful
doctrine that rejects the legitimacy of all religious philosophy but its own.
Wahhabism condemns Christians, Jews and all other non‑Muslims, as well as non‑Wahhabi
Muslims. Wahhabists believe it is a religious obligation for Muslims to hate
Christians and Jews.

It stresses a worldview in which there exist two opposing
realms that can never be reconciled ‑‑ Dar al‑Islam, or House of Islam, and Dar
al‑Har, or House of War, also referred to as Dar al‑Kufr, House of the Infidel.
When Muslims are in the Dar al‑Har, they must behave as if they were operatives
in a conflict who have been tasked with going behind enemy lines. The Wahhabist
ideology permits Muslims to exist “behind enemy lines” for only a few reasons:
to acquire knowledge, to make money to be later employed in the jihad against
the infidels, or to proselytize the infidels in an effort to convert them to
Islam.

Wahhabist doctrine specifically warns Muslims not to
imitate, befriend or help “infidels” in any way. It instills hatred for United
States because we are ruled by legislated constitutional law rather than by
tyrannical Sharia law. Wahhabists are instructed by edict to, above all, work
for the creation of an Islamic state where ever they may dwell.

It is because of the Wahhabist ideology’s cruel and
unyielding fanaticism that we in the United States should be concerned with its
prevalence within the mosques of our nation.

After the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979 – an
unprecedented action by the fundamentalists of the Shi’ite sect, the Saudi
Arabian government responded by coming to terms with the fundamentalist
Wahhabist movement of the Sunni sect. The Saudis, in return for a declaration
of non‑aggression, began to finance the construction of mosques in countries around
the world. An estimated $45 billion has been spent by the Saudis to finance the
building and operational costs of mosques and Islamic schools in foreign
countries, including in North America.

Through the funding of mosques, Islamic Centers and their
operations, Saudi Arabia is exporting the Wahhabist ideology. It is not unusual
to find that the presiding cleric in any given mosque within the United States
is a Wahhabist and that his teachings have been sanctioned and financed by the
Saudi government and vetted by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Two of the more predominant mosques in the United States
that have received funding from the Saudi government, and that adhere to the
Wahhabist ideology, are the al Farooq mosque in Brooklyn, New York, and the
King Fahd mosque in Los Angeles, California. Both mosques welcomed a number of
the hijackers who piloted the planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon
and a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania on September 11th, 2001.

In 2005, Freedom House, a 501(c)(3) organization concerned
with the mounting threats to peace and democracy, released a report titled,
Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Invade American Mosques. This examination
of a comprehensive sampling of mosques and Islamic Centers across America shows
that literature available in an overwhelming number of them indicates deference
for the Wahhabist ideology.

Among some of the edicts – or fatwas – issued through this
literature:

?? “[I]t is basic Islam to believe that everyone who does
not embrace Islam is an unbeliever, and must be called an unbeliever, and that
they are enemies to Allah, his Prophet and believers.”

?? “[O]ur doctrine states that if you accept any religion
other than Islam, like Judaism or Christianity, which are not acceptable, you
become an unbeliever. If you do not repent, you are an apostate and you should
be killed because you have denied the Koran.”

?? “Be dissociated from the infidels, hate them for their
religion, leave them, never rely on them for support, do not admire them, and
always oppose them in every way according to Islamic law.”

?? “Never greet the Christian or Jew first. Never
congratulate the infidel on his holiday. Never befriend an infidel unless it is
to convert him. Never imitate the infidel. Never work for an infidel. Do not
wear a graduation gown because this imitates the infidel.”

?? “Those who reside in the land of unbelief out of their
own choice and desire to be with the people of that land, accepting the way
they are regarding their faith, or giving compliments to them, or pleasing them
by pointing out something wrong with the Muslims, they become unbelievers and
enemies to Allah and his messenger.”

?? “To be true Muslims, we must prepare and be ready for
jihad in Allah’s way. It is the duty of the citizen and the government. The
military education is glued to faith and its meaning, and the duty to follow
it.”

With this ideology being taught in mosques across America,
there is little reason for speculating as to why hatred exists for American principles,
culture and ideology not only within the Islamic community, but among the
societally disenfranchised and ideologically vulnerable in the United States
who are being indoctrinated into this radical form of Islam.

This brings to the forefront a bothersome question. Why
aren’t those of the American Fifth Column, who are predisposed to seeking out
the haters among us, calling out the Wahhabist bigots who preach their hate in
American mosques?

We in the West – and especially in the United States – must
immediately seek out a greater understanding of not only the basic elements of
the threat of radical Islam, but the extent to which it has already infiltrated
our society. If we continue to remain ignorant of the facts surrounding this
very real war against our way of life, we will lose our nation with nary a shot
being fired.

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com Review
In the global search for culprits and causes in the rise of terrorism, former
Israeli ambassador to the United Nations Dore Gold shines a spotlight on a
nation many think of as a close ally of the United States: Saudi Arabia. As
he explains in Hatred’s Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global
Terrorism, Gold believes that the Saudi government is greatly influenced
by the Islamist sect known as Wahhabism and, he explains, that influence has
lead to Saudi support of terrorism in the Middle East, Europe, the United
States and around the world. The historical portion of Gold’s argument, where
he traces the emergence of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and the changing face
of Saudi leadership, is admirably extensive and detailed. His modern research
is a little more uneven, relying on statements by various Muslim clergy
members, letters to the editors of newspapers, opinion pieces, and other
evidence that is rarely damnable. Curiously, mentions of Israel and the
long-standing Arab-Israeli conflict are much more infrequent than one would
expect from an Israeli diplomat and scholar. But regardless of one’s opinion
of Gold’s research or his alarming conclusions, the book offers something not
often found in modern political nonfiction: a coherent structure, exhaustive
research, and a clear and consistent perspective on the ongoing threat of
terrorism. --John Moe--This
text refers to the Hardcover edition.

Review
If you read one book to understand al-Qaeda’s fury...to us within the Muslim
world, it should be this -- R. James Woolsey, former director of the CIA--This text refers to the Audio Cassette edition.